Slashdot Mirror
Nation-Wide Internet Censorship Proposed For Australia
sparky1240 writes "While Americans are currently fighting the net-neutrality wars, spare a thought for the poor Australians — The Australian government wants to implement a nation-wide 'filtering' scheme to keep everyone safe from the nasties on the internet, with no way of opting out: 'Under the government's $125.8 million Plan for Cyber-Safety, users can switch between two blacklists which block content inappropriate for children, and a separate list which blocks illegal material. ... According to preliminary trials, the best Internet content filters would incorrectly block about 10,000 Web pages from one million."
www.iwf.org.uk
Whilst to be fair as far as I understand it does a good job in that it focuses entirely on child porn and hasn't as I'm aware stepped out of this remit I am a little concerned that it came into play without anyone ever really noticing or anyone ever really being told.
Can we be sure this organisation does only do what it says it does? Can we be sure it doesn't ever abuse it's powers? Would we ever know if it did?
It is not run by the government and is an independent organisation, so not having a connection to the government increases my confidence in it a million fold at least however.
It's a real plan alright. It was an election promise/threat made shortly before the federal election last year, but it got surprisingly little attention. At the time I figured it was just an empty attempt to look tougher than the Liberal party (with their taxpayer funded filters for everyone's PC) program, and I hoped it would go the way of most election promises. Here's an EFF article about this from the beginning of the year, including links to Stephen Conroy's media releases: http://www.efa.org.au/2008/01/02/media-release-efa-attacks-clean-feed-proposal/ .
My understanding is that this has progressed as far as some technology demonstrations. I'm still hoping that technical infeasibility and resistance from ISPs will win out, but it's a worry that it has gone this far.
Tell your legislator that you are watching them very closely on this issue, and if they vote in favor of it, they won't be your legislator for much longer, because you will organize a campaign to de-elect them in two, four, or however many years it takes. Add that you won't allow your right to free speech to be trampled. That written speech should NEVER be censored no matter what it might be, and that anybody who supports censorship of webpages deserves the label "book burner" and include a picture like so: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/1933-may-10-berlin-book-burning.JPG/250px-1933-may-10-berlin-book-burning.JPG
Here in the States there are certain persons who want to block internet downloads of "Huckleberry Finn" because they think it's racist. Well, anybody who's actually read the book knows it is the exact opposite of racist, and in fact teaches a lesson about how blacks are no different than whites. Fortunately for us, our government agrees and does not censor Mark Twain's greatest novel.
Unfortunately for Aussies, your government doesn't have the common sense God granted a jackass. They are the 2000-era equivalent of book burners.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
Thanks for the link - very useful! Mod parent up.
Physicist, consultant, science communicator
>>>Tell your legislator
Actually don't write just yours. Write ALL of them. With actual letters if you can afford the postage.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
Uh, start voting out every incumbent till you get ones you like.
There is a war going on for your mind.
I would not be in favour of this at all.
The system we have in our home is simple, the computer is in the kitchen where everyone else is. To my mind that is the only sensible way to keep your children safe on the Internet. If they come across something that is unsuitable then we talk about it. That means they know what's dangerous and how to deal with it, and we know what they're getting involved in.
Blocking access is just wrapping your kids in cotton wool - and when you can't do that any more, they suddenly become very vulnerable.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
Why is censorship of illegal material bad? If the material is illegal, why shouldn't it be censored?
Can anyone make this argument? Because if the material is illegal in the first place, meaning you would normally get in trouble for accessing it, period, then a preemptive measure shouldn't harm you, logically.
Cast aside the argument that it will make the Internet sluggish, because that argument will be nullified if technology and such improve enormously. Also cast aside the argument that it will be expensive to do, because what if we make it incredibly efficient?
Also cast aside the false positives occurring, because what if they get it so refined that a false positive is a one in a million occurance. In such a way that the system works exactly as proposed, with no drawbacks (concerning false positives, network lag, etc.) whatsoever.
I'm not defending censorship. I want someone to make a good argument.
So what if Huckleberry Finn were a racist book? That wouldn't be a reason to censor it either. Nothing should be censored, ever.
There are other political parties out there that will fix the issues: Try the LDP:
http://www.ldp.org.au/federal/policies/index.html
I'm sure I can get a policy statement from them if I try hard enough...
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
Its interesting how so called free countries are rushing towards censorship, control and out right Big Brother, faster than so called bad countries.
Well, 9-11 9-11 9-11. 9-11 9-11 9-11, 9-11. "9-11". Fear, 9-11. Uncertainty, 9-11. Doubt, 9-11.
ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
I've seen a lot of posts from you, I guess it's your sig that I remember. Anyway, you're pretty hard line, I'd consider you as someone at the extremities on most topics. Don't be offended though, it's just an observation gleaned from a few hundred lines of text and subject to stereotype and various inaccuracies.
I'm happy you are all for censorship (which is really to say that I don't care either way), and I'll defend your right to do whatever you please so long as it doesn't affect me. If you want to censor my own inane disgruntled rantings as a former secret 3 letter agency worker drone, then I'll be more than happy to censor your.... (insert whatever it is you hold most dearly)
If you want to protect me from the ogrish of the world, don't bother. I don't need it. I'm big enough to handle my own affairs and sane enough to give my baby girl a happy and balanced childhood filled with pony's, daffodils, geek, and a sense of place and purpose within society. I can do this without the help of the government, so thanks anyway, but censorship is not for me.
I don't think it is an accident that these things are going forward in the English speaking countries where Murdoch has the most influence, US, UK, & Australia. So far as I can make out, Canada and NZ are sticking with freedom.
I can stand at the corner shouting kill all muslims, but if the authorities do nothing, then the muslims think that the authorities agree and that causes trouble for everybody.
Yes, you can, and no, it doesn't. You can rightfully say anything you want, peaceably, and the government has NO authority otherwise. Sure, you have to pay the consequences from the person punching you in the face for being a racist bigot (and they, in turn face consequences for punching you in the face). But the government CANNOT keep you from expressing your opinion. Same for the newspaper - it's not censorship if the editor chooses not to publish goatse - that is their right and responsibility as a private entity.
>>>So you're ok with child porn then ?
No because involuntary sex is wrong (it's rape), but I don't have any objections to Nudist sites which feature family photos. God created the human body; there's no reason to censor his artistry.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
It's sad that this is happening. As an Australian, I'm appalled that this is happening. Although I'm glad for many reasons that we finally got rid of little Bush Jr. (John Howard) and replaced him Kevin Rudd, it's a disaster that they now want to impose this crap on everyone.
Personally, I think the whole idea of content filtering to protect the children, as they claim, is bogus. Regardless of whether the filtering is done by the parents on their own computer or by the ISPs on the whole internet, I think it's bullshit.
Kids don't need overly restrictive blocks in place to prevent them getting access to porn, bomb making instructions or whatever else is deem inappropriate; nor do they need any kind of punishment if they do get access. Rather, they need good parental guidence to let them know what they should and should not look at, and be taught to be responsible with whatever they do get access to.
Besides, if some 13 or 14 year old boy looks up some porn, good for him. I did when I was that age, as did almost everyone else I knew back then, and it did me no harm at all. (Also, letting kids get porn for free from the internet is better then letting them resort to stealing porno mags that they're not allowed to buy legally)
By reading this signature, you hereby agree with the content of the above comment.
If this passed, it would be time for pitchforks and torches. Now you see why so many people are pro 2nd amendment (right to own guns) in the USA. To protect us from our own government.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
That's not censorship (blocking the source).
It's filtering (blocking access at the destination).
I have no objections to the latter, but STRONG objections to the former. I don't mind if you don't want to hear my ideas, but I do mind if you gag my mouth.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
So you're ok with child porn then ?
The images themselves? Fine, as long as I don't have to look at them. Keep them where they will only be found by those actually looking for them.
As for the production of said images - that's a completely different matter, not related to censorship at all.
You might disagree on it being a different matter, but look at other crimes. Hitting people with baseball bats are a crime. Showing footage of someone hitting people with baseball bats on the news is not. Outlawing that would be considered
censorship by most people.
Photographic evidence of a crime is not the same as the crime.
Or your bank details appearing on the web ?
No, because they are my business only. But if you wanted your bank details to appear on the web, they should not be censored for you. See the difference?
Now, there is a relation between those two questions other than the censorship. The person in those pictures might not want them out there. However, them being out there does not harm said person (as opposed to abusing the bank details), only the knowledge of them being out there. However, censorship does not solve this point. The pictures are still out there, the knowledge that they exist are just the same. If you know or think that pictures were taken, you know someone somewhere is jacking off to them. If you are not aware that pictures were taken, you don't go looking for them.
Because there's never been any reduction of people's freedoms in the US lately...
I would start with Article 12 from this... http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
i.e. "Article 12 : No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
Please note the little word "arbitrary". Is it arbitrary when it happens systematically? Such philosophical questions aside, what this article really says is that these must not occur except as allowed by law. This is just like when the polica can't arrest you on a whim, "just because" - that would be "arbitrary" - but they can still arrest you if they suspect you of committing a crime, because there is a law that says so.
In the same way, if the legislators decide to make a law that decides which web-sites you are allowed to visit, it is no longer arbitrary, and the only way to get around it, as far as I can see, is by either proving that it is unconstitutional or by getting somebody elected that are willing to repeal this law.
Looks like Australia is still a giant prison colony, eh?
No wonder all you Aussies call each other "mates". It's short for "inmates".
All you Aussies need to grow a pair, and rise up and fight your oppressive regime, or else you might as well continue to be sheep and invite the New Zealanders over to shear you too.
Ever notice how the word colony contains "colon"?
Strangely the discussion is more civilised here than at Ars Technica, hopefully this revelation will be the beginning of the end of the net filtering idea.
When I first heard of it, it sounded like a valid way to make it easier for people with children to filter their internet, and there was an opt-out option (I really disliked the idea of opt-out rather than opt-in though).
Now it sounds like it will turn us into a second great firewall of China, so I think the further this goes the more consternation will increase.
"Due to the shotgun nature of blocking filters, there will be many pages wrongfully blocked."
In a society that values freedom of speech, any page blocked is done so wrongfully.
At this point, Unequivocally, I say that; Yes I am willing to accept an internet, and a wider world, with child porn, Bank details, terrorists videos or what have you. Let me repeat my point. I would put up with any amount of child porn and pedophiles, any amount, before I would put up with taking one more step down the road that society is taking.
People need to make a stand on this issue. People have to take away the ability for authoritarians and enemies of free society to use certain words, concepts and arguments as unassailable and irrefutable weapons. The Taboo of countering these arguments must end.
It's better that a thousand children be molested than one website blocked. You think this idea is shocking? I think this image is more shocking. And make no mistake, this image is exactly where our society is headed if we allow our honest protests to be silenced with no more than a single word.
If you think I'm being too radical, I'll leave you with a Frederick Douglas quote to chew on: "Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground."
May the Maths Be with you!
And this is different from the Great Firewall of Chine how?
Not that being similar to the GFC makes it any more acceptable of course.
> Wow, a couple of networks may at some point be wrongly blocked by mistake for a short period of time till the mistake is identified.
You REALLY believe these mistakes will happen seldom and be fixed quickly? You must be new here.
yes, because free health care is exactly like government censorship. how dare the government take away one's right to be too poor to afford medical treatment.
let's do away with public education too. after all, the Nazi government killed millions of Jews. so how can we ever trust the government with anything?
let's just abandon all notions of a civil society because a single undemocratic decision to impose government censorship on the internet. that makes much more sense than exercising your moral prerogative as a member of a democratic society and protesting such violations of fundamental civil liberties. i mean, why participate in the democratic process when you can instead sit back and be a passive observer and simply blame everything on "the government" when things go bad? it's not like it's up to the people to make sure the government serves public interest.
What protects us is that the army is made up of citizens who (we hope) believe in freedom, democracy, and (hopefully) take their oath to uphold the Constitution [1] seriously. The army would mutiny if it were ordered to occupy, say, New York City and enforce blatantly anti-Constitutional laws. That is what protects freedom in America. Not my guns, not the promises of politicians, but the simple fact that our army is made up of us
Ask yourself this...if there is a large group of people united in a just cause...and the government is willing to use force to pacify them...the military is just going to pop some tear gas in there and the problem is taken care. When the people are armed it's not so easy. You have to escalate matters to a whole new level. The military will be willing to pacify these unarmed people on a whim (just as the police do now). But if the people are armed, it requires deadly force to pacify them. The politicians giving the orders, and military personel doing the violent pacifying suddenly need a damn good reason to do it. If things ever got so bad that large portions of the population were willing to take up arms against the US government, a population carrying pitchforks could easily be dismissed. An armed population could not. Lastly, it's NOT futile for a bunch of people armed with hunting rifles to take on a modern military. It's called guerrilla warfare and small bands of people employ it against large technologically advanced armies all the time and having been doing it for centuries... with varying degrees of success.
During Saddam Hussein's dictatorial regime an Iraqi could walk into a gun shop and buy an AK-47 with the full auto function enabled. By your argument, therefore, Iraq under Saddam should have been a very free place, but you'll note that it wasn't
You're making the assumption that Saddam was so bad that the people were willing to risk their lives to overthrow him. Maybe the majority of people were willing to live with things as they were...especially considering Saddam's history of gassing whole towns to quell an uprising.
Actually what I'd say is even more worrying is that it won't annoy 'everyone' with the false positives. Sure, if a site like YouTube, or Gmail or even Slashdot were blocked there would be outcry, but what about all those little sites that might be blocked or might just be down? What about the single page on the whole internet with the obscure information you need that's been up on some university server since 1996?
I'd be much more inclined to believe that you'll just get a generic error bounced to your browser than an actual redirect explaining that the government required blocking is filtering out the page you want. How are you going to know what you're missing out on and what's really not there? That's perhaps an even greater worry - once they do have this in place it'd be very easy to make the whole system effectively invisible to the vast majority of users. Few people (at least nobody considered worth listening to, unfortunately) will complain about something they don't notice.
Puritanism in the general sense -- "the desperate fear that someone, somewhere, is having a good time" -- seems to be a trait that pops up in just about every type of authoritarian system. Authoritarians of the right, authoritarians of the left, and authoritarians with no discernable political philosophy other than maintaining their own power all seem to put an inordinate amount of effort into "protecting the morals" of the societies they control. A good measure of a government's attitude toward freedom in general is its attitude toward sex and other pleasures of the body.
Honestly, I think it's a bit of a stretch to blame American small-p puritanism on those grim old pilgrims. The Mayflower landed almost four hundred years ago; a lot has changed since then, and the descendents of the Puritans are now held up as models of licentiousness and decadence by the descendants of Cavaliers ... Australia has a history almost as long and just as tangled. Whatever a country's origins, the people who live there now constitute their own society, and history informs but in no way determines how that society works.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
***Kids don't need overly restrictive blocks in place to prevent them getting access to porn, bomb making instructions***
The bomb making thing actually is kind of concerning. Many parents are fond of their kitchens and will miss them, not to mention the potential impact on neighbors in multiple unit buildings.
But there is another concern. Not only will legitimate web sites inevitably be accidentally blocked by false positives from the filters, but the kids will still find ways to access porn and other "undesirable"sites via false negatives. One might think that only the very clever or very bored will be able to master that. But in fact, kids talk to one another. The URL of any porn site that is not blocked will probably be known by 50% of the 13 year old males (and 20% of the 13 year old females) on your continent within 3.4 days of its discovery by any one of them.
Filters are a really dubious idea. They are expensive to buy, expensive to administer, and don't work very well. The concept probably is not fixable although the volume of available material could be cut substantially and cheaply by things like .xxx domains.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
So, how much do you want to bet that website like 4chan, 7chan, 99chan, 420chan, anonib, etc. etc. are all blocked as 'illegal' websites?